Type “Competition + Process Improvement” into the News section of your favourite search engine, and you will likely get a story (or a press release) that talks about a company overcoming new-millennium hyper-competition. The focus is on the solution (especially if you land in a press release), but one can imagine the work that goes into getting to solution. Not to mention, sustaining it. You may be living that “work” right now.
The classic problem-solving methodology is very straightforward: (1) identify the problem, (2) generate possible solutions, and (3) pick the best one. A prerequisite is to maintain a rational and objective focus, along the lines of “Getting-to-YES” style negotiating. Emotions cloud those operating “in the moment,” but in situations where parties (willingly or not) have to collaborate, distortion can come from many different – and surprising – places.
Rightly or wrongly, we have all pushed back (or been pushed) with a challenge to the legitimacy of our interests. Parents talk about “needing vs. wanting” ice cream after dinner (remember all those children that go to bed hungry); in the workplace, we ask people to separate “nice to have” from “need to have.” In all of this, the message is that “need” trumps “want,” which may cause some subtle limitations to successful results.
Too often, “need” identifies one potential solution (”We need a better inventory system”), while “want” can get to the root goal (”We want to remain competitive with as few changes as possible”). The wording and semantics may seem a better fit with strategic visioning than with everyday discussions, but think of the “want” behind some of these “need” statements:
- “We need more budget to do this project.”
- “We need to reduce head count.”
- “We need support from management/other divisions/the union.”
At the risk of treading into a discussion on inspirational leadership, visions talk about wants (or hope) that would offer almost-universal solutions. Each of our above “need” messages offers a solution that will become a problem for at least one other party:
- Extra dollars come from someone else’s budget;
- Head-count reduction hits “Joe Plumber” pretty hard, and
- Support takes other people’s time and energy.
The first thing to identify is a problem that we can all address. The corporate vision statement may do it, but the responsibility may fall to leaders and micro-leaders.
- “We want this company/unit to remain in business/this country.”
- “We want to reach a sustainable operating size.”
- “We want our company to be more responsive to external change.”
Far from being flowery, these may convey the real, wider-reaching need for change and improvement.With a recent MBA class of mine, the discussion focussed on an idealistic entrepreneur’s encounter with venture capitalists (from CBC’s Dragon’s Den). In the “identify the problem” stage, the initial class consensus was “she needs money,” (which, by the way, is the whole reason for going on the show in the first place, right?). I would (and did) argue that a focus on what you want to accomplish changes the discussion from “give me your money” to “do you want to help me do what I want to do?”
The difference can be very subtle, but can be extremely important. The latter offers more options, including, for example, referrals to other contacts or organizations if the dollar return happens not to be there. Money is one answer, and it may be the only one. You risk not finding out for sure unless you explain your vision. It is not simply a matter of substituting words (find and replace “need” for “want” won’t do it). Try switching the approach to the problem…from mine to ours. Some leaders/vision statements do it well; other times, those in the day-to-day discussion have to help identify shared problems.
This originally appeared in the October 2008 e-Newsletter for the Canadian Supply Chain Sector Council (www.supplychaincanada.org).
Today’s Toronto Star has an interesting take on a bill regarding apologies that is currently being considered at Queen’s Park. The bill apparently frees a doctor to say “sorry” for a mistake or outcome, without the fear of having the apology brought into court as an admission of guilt. It is an intriguing proposal, which promises to reduce the number of cases that go to court, because an apology may be all the person needs to forget and move on.
This flavour of apology resembles decaf coffee and light beer: all the good, with none of the bad. The problem is that–and coffee- and beer-drinkers know this–it can’t be the same.
Recall in April 2001 when a U.S. spy plane crashed in China, the Chinese authorities cried out for an apology. What they got was a declaration that the U.S. was “sorry that it happened.” I was living in Japan and the time, working as a translator, and remember the discussion about the translation: “See, he said ’sorry” to them.” True, and somehow he managed not to apologize. Such are the nuances of international diplomacy.
Here, however, we are all speaking English. This bill could do one of two things to exchanges where doctors have to convey bad news to patients.
#1 – Doctors who are genuinely sorry with the result (even though they surely explained the risks going in) can relax and communicate to a fellow human being that they really wish it could have worked out better.
Note: this has the potential to ring very hollow, even if the intent is true.
#2 – We will see a rise in no-risk lip-service apologies designed to quiet a patient who might otherwise fight back and demand retribution from the system that failed to beat the odds, or at least cover the spread, in a medical procedure. (This is the provincial NDP’s position, as I understand it.)
I think that the benefits from scenario #1 will outweigh the cynical suspicions of #2, so it is a good development. I also think that it is too bad that we have to split the individual apology from the institutional apology. Either way, we lose a bit of the human element, but we all have to minimize the downside. This may be a smart trade off that leads to a better working system.Another option might be for doctors to preface apologies by saying, “The opinion I am about to express comes from my individual feelings, and in no way reflects those of this institution or my profession.”
There are two questions arise whenever a change initiative hits a snag that requires a decision: 1) “Who can make the call?” and, 2) “Who knows best?” Such is the interplay between authority and expertise in moving change forward. The manner in which individuals manage this interplay can have drastic effects on the success or failure of any given improvement initiative.
Authority – Who’s in charge?
Things are straightforward when the person who should make the decision has the visibility to come up with the best answer. Small operations, where the founder/owner knows every detail of every process, supplier, procedure, etc., will fall into this category. It is not long, however, before organizations reach a size where authority and expertise sit with different individuals. In the SMB space, as well as with larger corporations, necessary functional divisions make it impossible for those at the top of the organizational chart to see everything beneath them. Culturally and structurally these organizations have to create an environment where information flows up and down. Also, different layers of management can create a dynamic by which those at different managerial rungs will be tempted to cover their respective backsides, on the off chance that results are not as favourable as expected.
Two things to watch out for in the authority structure are:
1.Are those in charge accessing all the information that they need to make decisions?
2.Are those in authority taking responsibility for the decisions they make (or should be making)?
“No” to either of these will hurt implementation in every case.
Expertise – Who knows best?
There is a human tendency to over-recognize ones own expertise (and I say this as an expert in interpersonal communications in change environments…). In process improvement projects, however, those “doing the work” can add significant value by sharing their “on the ground” expertise. Familiarity with the day-to-day operations provides excellent visibility to identify areas for cost and/or time savings. These process experts may not, however, have visibility for the overall operations or the wider improvement initiatives that are underway.
Good information comes from tapping into the expertise at all levels of the organization. This may sound easy but can get hung up on a couple of areas:
1.Managers who have “come through the ranks” may have to realise that times might have changed;
2.In engaging the “rank and file” managers must foster trust and manage expectations (e.g. just because I am asking you what you think, doesn’t necessarily mean we are going to do it.)
3.Once the decisions are made, managers have the responsibility to “close the loop” with those whose expertise has been tapped.
So what?
Authority and expertise play different and important roles in enabling the most effective changes to take place. The interplay has the potential to slow or stop some of the best initiatives from smooth implementation. I would suggest that more responsibility sits with those in formal authority to reduce the interpersonal noise that habitually arises. This type of “micro leadership” can pay macro dividends as the right information moves to the top of the pile.
This originally appeared in the September 2008 e-Newsletter for the Canadian Supply Chain Sector Council (www.supplychaincanada.org).
- Recent Posts
- Blogroll
- Meta
